Talk:Breaker of Chains/Jaime-Cersei sex scene
Version 1.0 I have finished writing this. Does anyone have any comments? Disagree with anything? Please leave feedback.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 06:43, April 7, 2015 (UTC) Not quite sure how you managed to write a small novel out of 2 minutes of material, but I commend you on doing so! I agree mostly with you on the points you addressed, but I don't think I blame Graves as much as you. Granted, I do think he was at fault, but I see it as a simple mistake/misinterpretation on his behalf that for whatever reason was not rectified. All the contradictions to me seem like a bunch of people with different ideas/views giving their take on it, and some of those people afterwards were told a different story or decided they were wrong before, so they publicly tell a different story. All the while it seems nobody wanted to outright say "it was his fault" or in Graves' case "it was my fault". Ultimately if I were Graves I'd just come out and say it was a mistake on my part (which as you point out all the evidence points to that being the case) but for whatever reason he doesn't want the finger pointed at him. I don't think Graves is a bad director, in fact I think he is a great director in spite of this scene as a few of my favourite episodes have been directed by him (The Children, And Now His Watch is Ended, The Moutain and The Viper) and I'll just leave it as everyone makes mistakes. I think the George Lucas effect might be taking place a bit here, meaning had success in the past so he is given full control and power in which no one wants to second guess him, Graves to a much lesser extent than Lucas, as although Graves is probably to blame for a scene in a TV show, Lucas is to blame for 3 entire movies. Your assessment that the scene should not be regarded as a rape scene is 100% accurate in my eyes. Even if everyone who has ever worked on the show decides to come out and say it was, I will always maintain that it wasn't. I think as far as the scene is concerned, and how it was handled afterwards, lack of clarity is at fault here. - Son Of Fire (talk) 09:51, April 7, 2015 (UTC) I would remove the comparisons between D&D's handling of the situation and Tywin's handling of Gregor's rape and murder of Elia, for a start. Other than being disproportionate, it serves no actual purpose, and (no offence) sounds pompous and self-congratulatory. You also have a habit of bolding or italicizing words, sentences, and so on when quoting other people. Obviously you do this when you feel that particular attention needs to be drawn to what's being said. However, unless the person in question is actually emphasizing what they're saying, this is dishonest, as you're sensationalizing their words, and potentially changing the context of what's being said to suit your own argument. Generally your language throughout the article is highly personal and subjective, and reads like your waging a one man war against D&D and Graves... I would seriously question if there's an actual market for this kind of article on a wiki at all. I mean, why not simply stick to the facts? The article ends with "Hopefully in the meantime audiences can put this incident behind them"... frankly you sound like the one who's having a hard time doing this, and I honestly interpreted this article as an attempt to keep the controversy alive... dare I say even... to inflame it.--The White Winged Fury 09:54, April 8, 2015 (UTC) : I agree. The problem is that it reads as an editorial. If TDD is inflexible in his decision that such an article is really needed, he should really consider toning down the subjectivity, following your suggestions —take out all the unnecessary and sometimes misleading italics and bolding, all the qualitative adjectives and adverbs, and the commentary —certainly take out that Tywin digression, but not only that. I can't imagine that TDD believes that things like "We can analyze this until the White Walkers take us" belong in an enyclopedia. This reads like a review or an opinion piece, not a wiki article. The text is also way too long and repetitive; even if we accepted it as the opinion piece that it is, it should be heavily trimmed down. : However, the major issue is the commentary —quotes are used only in order to construct a story around them, but the truth is none of us have the whole story. It's merely speculation, such as the subjective speculation on GRRM's true motives, which contradict what he actually says just to make a point, and that's just not acceptable —just because GRRM usually is and has to be diplomatic about the show doesn't mean we can assume he thinks exactly the opposite of what he says (in this case, and Tysha and Talisa as well.) Sometimes, the texts strains the meaning of the quote even further, by bolding something else entirely and ignoring the more pertinent part, such as when Benioff literally says that Jaime forces himself on Cersei, which is featured but completely ignored on the analysis, or when it is suggested that because he was the only one to comment on it they were suspcisiously silent about it. They weren't. They commented on it in the "Inside the episode" feature and otherwise let the show speak for itself, which is what they have always done. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous, it's creating a conspiracy where there is none. Then there's stuff like this: : "it is extremely incongruent that in the very next episode she doesn't particularly react as if that is what happened." : Considering that in their very next scene Cersei barely looks at Jaime in the eyes and they don't refer to each other by name, and Cersei even remarks upon it ("Your Grace"; "How formal", and later "That'll be all, Lord Commander"), I'd say there's plenty of visual evidence that something had happened. Rape? I don't think so, I agree it's more complicated than that, but if I were as speculative as this analysis, I could argue that's what it meant. The text speculates, but only on one direction; this conversation, which clearly meant to imply a discomfort between them, is completely absent from the analysis, and contradicted in the quote above. Why? I assume that it's because it complicates the intended argument. The point is: there should be no argument, no commentary. : And how can "notes" like this be justified? : [Note: In the next paragraph Benioff finally attempts to answer the fan's specific question, ''why this change was made, and what the writers intended - but after spending over 60 seconds waffling and rambling, avoiding giving a straight answer.]'' : Is that necessary? That part is supposed to be a transcription. The same goes for "Weiss continued to remain silent", as if that was in any way necessary context to transcribe the interview. It isn't. It's commentary —subjective commentary intended to criticize D&D in a section that's supposed to be impartially transcribing their words. Then a sub-section is titled with the words "suspiciously evasive." ''And in that section, the claim is made that Benioff avoided the issue and waffled about, despite the fact that he literally replied to the audience member —though not fast enough for it not to be suspicious, apparently. This is followed by ''"Cutting out all of the time that Benioff was wandering off-topic, this is all that he responded on the matter." So, if that's the case (it isn't; he was giving context, not vereeing off-topic), then why was the rest of the quote added? To criticize Benioff's interview skills? To create the elaborate story that he's being "suspiciuously evasive",'' despite the fact that he then answered the question by saying they stand by the fact that they believe that's what the character would do in the situation? Remember, the audience member asked ''why "the rape scene" was included, and Benioff answered that; she didn't ask if it was a rape scene, so of course Benioff didn't provide an answer to that —that wasn't the question. Finally, there's the section psycho-analizing Benioff and his words —"a tell in lie detection". I'm not even going there. : As "Son of Fire" suggests, this situation easily reads as a bunch of people with different ideas and views giving their take on it, not the elaborate plot the text suggests. So, basically, this is my suggestion: showcase the quotes in their context and that's it; people should do their own analysis and reach their own conclusions. It's not the place of TDD or the wiki to do it for them. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 10:13, April 8, 2015 (UTC) ...Yes, it is an editorial. From time to time, wikis need to make an Administrator-level editorial statement. That's what our "In the books" sections are. Heck, even in the "Notes" sections, what are we doing when we point out "the number of troops they give in this episode contradicts what they stated last episode"? Fundamentally, what you're arguing for is a reflection of the entire problem - no one was willing to simply read and compare statements and say "it looks like Benioff and Weiss don't really have anything coherent to say, that they never scripted this as a rape scene, and they're just too embarrassed to outright state it." Ultimately...are you disagreeing with my conclusions as inaccurate, or...are you simply arguing on general principle that we shouldn't make such obvious analysis? That we should be an utterly inactive filter simply reposting quotes? Heck...if you're worried it sounds more editorial than encyclopedia...I would have the Bureaucrats leave their signatures at the bottom of the page, and simply formally make it a "Wiki Editorial". Our job is to find the truth of the matter and inform the public as best as possible. "Considering that in their very next scene Cersei barely looks at Jaime in the eyes and they don't refer to each other by name, and Cersei even remarks upon it ("Your Grace"; "How formal", and later "That'll be all, Lord Commander"), I'd say there's plenty of visual evidence that something had happened. ''" ...well that's just ''your "editorial", and far more subjective; I was citing major publications which asked "why aren't they reacting to this" -- the ENTIRE subsection titled "this was ignored in Season 4" was quotes from major review sites, establishing the point "they don't really react like it was for the rest of the season". Thus every subsequent time in this that I say "they don't react like it's rape for the rest of the season"...I'm referring to that previous subsection, instead of making a half dozen citation tags over and over again. ...other than complaints on general principle about even analyzing this in the first place, are there any other specific complains? Tywin comparison - I'll take that out if the other Bureaucrats don't want it. Bolding text - that made it more legible and highlighted the important parts. --The Dragon Demands (talk) 15:40, April 8, 2015 (UTC) " I honestly interpreted this article as an attempt to keep the controversy alive... dare I say even... to inflame it." "Controversy", "the controversy" -- everyone keeps using that as a buzzword without saying exactly what they mean. Do you mean to say "we've settled into just assuming it was rape"? Because if you don't, a LOT of people still do.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 15:46, April 8, 2015 (UTC) ". I can't imagine that TDD believes that things like "We can analyze this until the White Walkers take us" belong in an enyclopedia. " Ack, I didn't say that, it was the source I was quoting, but I forgot to set it off in indents and quote marks - thank you for pointing this out.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 15:48, April 8, 2015 (UTC) "To pretend otherwise is disingenuous, it's creating a conspiracy where there is none. " ...Considering Bryan Cogman's blunt refusal to discuss the scene at all, OR its impact for the rest of the show and episodes he writes...yeah, that's "a conspiracy". Not Illuminati, but "dear god, we shouldn't talk about this because it's embarrassing". NOR does this explain why the director and actors said contradictory things.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 15:51, April 8, 2015 (UTC) ": And how can "notes" like this be justified?" Not everyone is going to take the time to watch the video, and relying only on text can lack the full context of the video -- the realization that it takes 60 seconds for him to even start answering the question, which in the video feels like a really long time. It's contextualizing the print text for those who don't watch the video.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 15:52, April 8, 2015 (UTC) :" people should do their own analysis and reach their own conclusions. It's not the place of TDD or the wiki to do it for them. " No. A flat "No". We can refine this if anyone wants, but you're asking us to pretend to be blind? That's why this problem lasted for 12 months. No one called Benioff and Weiss on their silence but presented it as evidence that they wanted it to be a rape scene. AS THIS ARTICLE POINTS OUT, they actually NEVER described it as a rape scene, but hesitated to call it anything. Hesitated. There's something called a "lie by omission" - even seemingly neutral quotes, not given with editorial context, can themselves be misleading. You're asking us to leave a quote saying "Benioff never denied it was rape" (accurate)....but not have the intellectual or editorial integrity to step in and point out the obvious? "He never actually said it WAS rape either, don't misunderstand us, and based on all evidence from the actors and directors it seems that they actually never intended that but are too embarrassed to admit it". "People should do their own analysis"...we're a wiki, we analyze things. To say otherwise is obscene. But again: if we are "analyzing" the scene, do you disagree with this analysis? You argue that Jaime and Cersei's interactions in "Oathkeeper" are stiff and formal enough to imply a rape scene happened in the previous episode. Fair enough. How, then, do you account for the actors and directors saying contradictory statements? "As "Son of Fire" suggests, this situation easily reads as a bunch of people with different ideas and views giving their take on it, not the elaborate plot the text suggests." Actually, Son of Fire agreed that it looked like Benioff and Weiss were too embarrassed to admit it was never scripted as a rape scene. What I mean is, are you saying that Graves and the Actors honestly interpreted it as not a rape scene, while the writers always considered it a rape scene? As I explained: if that were the case, given their other comments...had the writers "intended" it as a rape scene, had "written" it as a rape scene, as they say, then that would be in their script that they gave the actors and director. The fact that the actors and director deny that they ever considered it "rape" suggests that the word "rape" was not in the script, nor was "sexually assaults her", or anything to indicate that Cersei isn't consenting to this. I'm confused: are you claiming that the script did or did not include the word "rape" or more generally, instructions that it was non-consensual in some form? --The Dragon Demands (talk) 15:56, April 8, 2015 (UTC) I don't think this writeup is perfect, don't get me wrong. I'm not that thin-skinned. I assumed the other Admins would refine my language and make it more concise if anything needs to be fixed up in it. --The Dragon Demands (talk) 16:03, April 8, 2015 (UTC) If you don't want constructive criticism, don't ask for it. I don't have much more to add; this article is highly subjective and doesn't belong in a wiki, for the reasons given by me and the others above. You don't want to hear that? Fine. As for that I think, that's irrelevant. If you really wanna know, I essentially agree with you, but that's not the point; the point is the way this text is written —poorly. It's a highly speculative analysis, and it's written as if it belonged on the Daily Mail or some scandalous paper like that, precisely because of what you choose (and it is a choice) to emphasize and how you choose to make your argument. You use all the dirty little tricks —selective quotes taken out of context (or taken in context but then disregarded "because they had to be civil, which automatically means he thinks exactly the opposite"), bolding and italics where there were none. I know this isn't a newspaper, but stil, this would be laughed out of any journalism-related endevor. It's beyond an opinion piece; it's sensationalistic, and certainly not encyclopedic. These don't point to a wiki editorial and an attempt to reach at the truth, but to a conclusion already arrived at and towards which you will argue absolutely anything, however crassly. If you want me to be more constructive, I may do my own version in my page, based on your article, so that you see what I mean. However, for that this should be unblocked; having the HTML code will help out. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 16:08, April 8, 2015 (UTC) Let me be very clear: I'm vehemently against doing no analysis, but I don't mean to be shouting at any of you if you disagree with the analysis that I made. That is, if you honestly concluded from the evidence that it actually was intended by the writers as a rape scene, I do not mean to deny your views at all. Yes, I am also grateful for constructive criticism in the "manner" that I wrote my conclusion, i.e. even by those who agree with it who nonetheless think it could be worded better and want to refine it. WHEN did I take ANY quote out of context? Yes you are free to write your own on your Talk page (specifically phrasing it as "this is how I see it" to make sure no one mistakes it for an official article).--The Dragon Demands (talk) 16:24, April 8, 2015 (UTC) As for comparing the Bush controversy to this —D&D didn't see Bush being there as a decision relevant to the story and the characters. You may argue D&D have been suspiciuously silent if you want, but they certainly haven't criticized the scene. In fact, in Oxford they stood by it. So I don't know why you think they'll change it in the future. That's not analysis, but speculation. Though god, I'd hope that were the case. Probably a better, less ambiguous cut of the scene could be made without shooting any new footage. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 16:39, April 8, 2015 (UTC) No, they did not "stand by it" at Oxford - Benioff waffled around, merely restated the question, and peculiarly avoided calling it "rape" - simply "yeah we filmed it the way we did because we felt it was right to do for the moment". You are yourself subjectively reading what happened. It wasn't a ringing endorsement. And now you're agreeing that there should be a redited cut of it?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 16:43, April 8, 2015 (UTC) Well, at least for myself, yeah. I'd love to edit the scene myself, for my personal viewing experience. What I'm saying is I don't think D&D or HBO will do it. As for Oxford, he didn't restate the question. I'm simply reading what he said. You're speculating on his possibly mischevious or calculated intentions. You may be right, but you can't know. No one can. And that's why most of this article is, though hard work I'm sure, in vain. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 16:50, April 8, 2015 (UTC) Wait....let me be very clear: I don't think that Benioff and Weiss have "mischievous or calculating intentions" -- I don't think they have any intentions. That is, I think they're in such a blind panic of embarrassment that they've chose to say nothing - basically nothing, avoiding the question. They're not technically "lying" because they really avoided saying anything, even when directly asked.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 17:03, April 8, 2015 (UTC) I think the article is okay. I find it a bit too long, but that is to be expected of a controversial matter that includes any points of view. Still I'd try to make it as simple as possible--Gonzalo84 (talk) 19:18, April 8, 2015 (UTC) ::Alright, waiting to hear what QueenBuffy has to say...--The Dragon Demands (talk) 19:24, April 8, 2015 (UTC) ::: This brings to mind something that I've been wanting to get off my chest for some time, so let's get it out the way before continuing. The Dragon Demands: I see you making repeat references to "admin-level edits", "admin-level decisions", "admin-level discussions" and "admin-level statements". Let's be clear about this once and for all: There's no such thing. An administrator is not "in charge" of a wiki. An administrator is not "above" a regular user, just as a bureaucrat is not above an administrator. Nobody's opinion is more important than anyone else's. For future reference, I'd recommend you read Wikia's manual on how to be an administrator, with particular emphasis on the section "what an administrator is not". ::: Indeed to quote said manual: "Admins should always be thought of '''not' as bosses or rulers, but as guides who are no more or less important or influential than any other user on the wikia. All users on wikias should be equal, even those who have a few extra editing tools. After all, if admins were the only important people on the wikia, then there would be no need for users. That would certainly make building a community difficult! The title of administrator would not mean anything were it not for the non-administrators that make up most of a wikia's community, because admins are there to serve the community."'' ::: At the end of the day, an administrator is simply a user who is trusted with a few extra technical functions in order to carry out maintenance on the site. A bureaucrat is simply an administrator who has the ability to give other users admin status. That's all. This isn't a hierarchy: "'''admins don't make the rules and don't make unilateral decisions, but rather they use their tools to carry out the will of the community." ::: Right, now we're clear on that, let's get back to the matter at hand. Firstly, no it's not "necessary" for a wiki to make a statement about such matters. By "the problem that persisted for 12 months" you mean the ambiguity of the scene in general, right? If so, how exactly do you think this article resolves that? Do you honestly think that anyone who reads this will suddenly experience an epiphany and go "''OF COURSE, I '''understand now. I've seen the LIGHT!". No. That won't happen. People who are convinced that Jaime raped Cersei will still think that. From that perspective alone this article serves no actual purpose at all. It fails on every level. ::: You also seem to be under the impression that, when "Breaker of Chains" first aired nearly a year ago - the entire online Game of Thrones fandom was waiting with baited breath to see what the official reaction from this wiki was. Sorry to disabuse you, but that's not the case. There's no market for this kind of thing. ::: As for the bolding... like I said I figured that you're intentions were simply to highlight the key points. That doesn't change the fact that there are side-effects of this. It's incorrect. End of story. ::: No, I'm not asking you to "pretend to be blind". As I said, ''acknowledge that the scene generated significant controversy, but STICK. TO. THE. FACTS. It is not the job of a wiki (an encyclopedia) to convince people to adopt a certain position - which is something you seem utterly obsessed with. At the end of the day does it really matter that much if people hold one opinion or another... or none? This article won't change that, and I don't think it's the place of a wiki to try.--The White Winged Fury 11:55, April 9, 2015 (UTC) ::: I've thought to point that out once in a while, but I doubt he'll agree, even if it's on the rules. And yeah, as you said, the article should stick to the facts; it's not TDD's or the wiki's job to convince of any position on this issue (and he won't be able to, especially considering it's not a well written text). —ArticXiongmao (talk) 11:57, April 9, 2015 (UTC) ::: Well, if he doesn't, he doesn't. I'm sure a staff member will be more than happy to explain it to him. It's past time this was said. I can't stand watching him shoot people down with "this is an admin only matter" anymore.--The White Winged Fury 13:30, April 9, 2015 (UTC) This would have been better off as a blog post than a full fledged article, in my opinion. DRAEVAN13 Category:User Signature Templates 13:18, April 9, 2015 (UTC) Let me be very clear, Winged Fury: I'm not pompous enough to think that the world was waiting with baited breath to hear what the wiki had to say a full 12 months later. This article being posted now is my failure -- I was graduating from university when the episode aired and wasn't able to give a more thorough writeup during Season 4. I intended to write this back then. Posting it now is..."for posterity?" (in the sense that Wookiepedia still posts notes about The Empire Strikes Back even though it is not current). Enough people were coming onto the wiki to post about whether it was or was not rape that at some point the admins had to step in and establish "policy". Yes, you raise a point that people who think it was rape even if they know the creators said it wasn't (that is, hypothetically, if Benioff and Weiss had immediately said it was not, some people - while believing them - would still say it "counted as a rape scene" because they couldn't tell the difference -- which is why it should have been reedited and rereleased. However, there are also a large number of readers who honestly want to sit down and read all of the relevant interview quotes in context -- readers who are confused about what their intent was. It was good to point this out, I'll add a few notes about this.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 15:15, April 9, 2015 (UTC) So you're making this gargantua even larger, and by the way disregarding TWWF's greater point? —ArticXiongmao (talk) 15:20, April 9, 2015 (UTC) : "However, there are also a large number of readers who honestly want to sit down and read all of the relevant interview quotes in context -- readers who are confused about what their ''intent was."'' : Are there? Okay... good for them. If you can present those "relevant quotes" in context, from a neutral point of view, and without so much... stuffiness, and bombastic language then I'll look forward to reading your newer (and hopefully a lot shorter) edit.--The White Winged Fury 16:05, April 9, 2015 (UTC) :: That Tywin analogy in particular needs to die.--The White Winged Fury 16:24, April 9, 2015 (UTC) Well okay I removed the Tywin analogy.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 18:14, April 9, 2015 (UTC) It's a start.--The White Winged Fury 18:51, April 9, 2015 (UTC) Alrighty. Now I'm trying to meet you halfway on this: what are specific lines that you felt were too verbose or that need to be cut? I honestly can't tell so I really need specific instances you have in mind.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 20:18, April 9, 2015 (UTC) : I'll have another read through at the weekend when I've got more free time. Off the top of my head... I recall a section dedicated to why Martin approved the scene at script writting stage, followed by what you call "the only logical possibilities", which are in fact nothing but conspiracy theories involving D&D trying to "sneak" the scene in without him noticing. This is absurd, and as usual you're overthinking this. Even if true, this will never be confirmed for us, so such aimless speculation serves no one. You need to be neutral when desribing other people; saying that Benioff was "waffling", even if you think he was is innapropriate, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia entry.--The White Winged Fury 11:09, April 10, 2015 (UTC) I may have phrased that section poorly. My point was that if Martin said "the script outline didn't mention this as different", the only possible scenarios (assuming Martin is telling the truth, and we have no reason to think otherwise): *1 - It wasn't in the script outline because it simply wasn't in the finalized script at all - Benioff and Weiss never intended this to be a rape scene, and never scripted it that way. *2 - It was in the script but not the script outline, meaning either: **A - They consciously hid it from Martin (we have no reason to suspect this) **B - They intended to write a rape scene, it uses the word "rape" in the script, but it honestly didn't occur to them that this was big enough of a change to inform Martin about. ...I really should have used those disqualifiers ("we have no reason to suspect they intended this and hid it from Martin")...but I think the overall logic stands. Unless you think there are other possibilities? Any other language in other sections I should tone down? It may help to go one section at a time.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 00:03, April 11, 2015 (UTC) ...having read that EW interview with Coster-Waldau, I'm now much more thinking that their attitude is "people will be offended if we deny this "was" rape"....yes, I've seen a few reviewers who say they would be offended even if they re-edited and re-released it...but the overwhelming majority of critical and fan reactions I've seen were actually offended that they did not re-edit it. I'm less and less thinking they were "avoiding it out of embarrassment at their own failure" so much as "terrified that no matter what they said they'd only be sticking their foot in their mouths again". Again, this logic is inherited flawed: just change the god-damned scene. Again, the parallel with the Bush head: some hardcore conservatives are going to remain offended even after they re-edited the scene. That doesn't mean you shouldn't change something, to at least make your intent clear (they never meant to offend Bush or his supporters, it wasn't a big political statement). If nothing else, why not just make your intent as clear as possible?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 00:34, April 11, 2015 (UTC) Thinking on it....those viewers, who I feel have a right to feel offended and lose respect for the writers that they let this happen...those viewers who would be more offended if they "said it wasn't rape".....wouldn't they be happy if they went beyond saying it to actually doing something by re-editing it? A fraction of those are the groups such as the writers of that article in YesMagazine.com who said they would be offended even if the scene was re-edited. In which case, logically....they're already offended! Re-editing and re-releasing the scene isn't going to satisfy them, but it will satisfy the larger number of viewers clamoring for it to be re-edited! How is re-editing and re-releasing the scene to make it look consensual "denying" that it looked like a rape scene the first time? If anything, that's the ultimate admission that "this looked confusingly like rape the first time, so we had to re-do it". And what's the other option? Assume that no, Jaime actually raped Cersei because what's on-screen the first time counts.....and then remain annoyed that the series never showed any aftermath to it? This was NEVER a case of either/or, "well we can't just say it wasn't rape because the audience would feel we were denying it looked like rape"....yeah, guys, you're not just supposed to "say" it wasn't rape, you're supposed to RE EDIT it in such a way that it no longer looks like rape! Why the heck are we even discussing this! This should have been re-edited and re-released WITHIN THE MONTH THAT IT AIRED.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 00:44, April 11, 2015 (UTC) Version 2.0 Okay, "Version 1.0" was the one I made without feedback. Also...and I should have made this more clear...it's not as if I sat down and wrote a rough draft of this: "Version 1.0" was my rough draft. I was very much figuring out my thoughts as I went. If nothing else it's very long - though something this important merits some length - but I should try and make it more "concise". Also removed some of the more "preachy" parts like the Tywin analogy. Really, what made me realize most of all that I needed to rework this into "Version 2.0" was when I read the recent Coster-Waldau and Headey interview in Entertainment Weekly (thanks for pointing that out by the way), and Coster-Waldau very succinctly explained that their real motivation seems to - primarily, anyway - be fear of offending people further -- apparently the whole semantics of "was it a rape scene" breaks down. Obviously there is really a split between "did people perceive it as a rape scene" and "was it intended as a rape scene" -- the latter of which wasn't even clear because they said nothing. Which was really a mistake, they should have just redited it. So I'm going to re-read through this and "refine" it more. Another major problem...and I hate it when I fall into this: I fell back into "storytelling mode" not "logical point by point research article" mode. Simply..."storytelling mode" is when you build up to a grand finale, build up to a punchline...in research articles, you're actually supposed to clearly explain your main point at the beginning of each subsection, in order to GRAB the attention of the reader, and then explain how you reached this by presenting your evidence (and then maybe restate the point at the end of the subsection if it is long enough). I don't actually point out why I'm saying stuff in section 1 which is only relevant by section 4. This needs to be fixed. Dear god, the current "Version 1.0" is about 30 single-spaced Microsoft Word pages long. So things in "Verison 2.0" will include: *1 - Overall focus on trying to be more succinct (helps that now I know how it ends) *2 - Clearly state conclusion of each subsection at the beginning instead of "building to a punchline" *3 - Cut out some of the more preachy stuff or at least focus on being less overall negative, putting in more warnings like "either Benioff and Weiss lied to Martin or they didn't" -- need to add "there's no reason to think they lied, it seems to be the other option" etc. etc. *4 - Shift focus from "They're avoiding the issue out of embarrassment" (which may have some elements of truth...) to the more prominent thing that even Coster-Waldau pointed out: they're terrified that saying or doing anything would end up offending some people (though, ironically, it seems that many more people were annoyed at their inaction). I'll post here when I'm done. --The Dragon Demands (talk) 02:24, April 11, 2015 (UTC) Okay, I have finished "Version 2.0". Wow...it's still 26 single-spaced Microsoft Word pages long...keep in mind that much of that is block quotes I made from interviews, not my own writing. Generally, I tried to soften the tone: not "they're hiding their embarrassment" but "they're terrified that anything they say will be misinterpreted as rape denial". I focused on trying to be more coherent by directly stating the conclusions of each section at the beginning, then following with evidence. Any specific criticisms? I mean point to specific lines you disagree with. Any parts that you would plausibly cut?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 06:35, April 11, 2015 (UTC) Haven't read 2.0 yet, but your description sure sounds much better, especially the effort to make it concise and the language more neutral. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 10:46, April 11, 2015 (UTC) Final It is done. I have added images as per request. Both other Wiki-Bureaucrats signed off on it. This is now officially the position and policy of Game of Thrones Wiki.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 23:01, April 18, 2015 (UTC) Can administrators decide that an article is part of the "official policy" of the wiki? This is content, not burocreacy. Are the wiki rules, cited by 'The White Winged Fury', wrong? How can this and many other of your so-called "admin-level decisions" (usually accompanied by threats of banning if the text is edited again, which shuts discussion down) be squared off with what the rules apparently state? "An administrator is simply a user who is trusted with a few extra technical functions in order to carry out maintenance on the site. A bureaucrat is simply an administrator who has the ability to give other users admin status. That's all. This isn't a hierarchy." Anyway, that side, the text iself looks better now. Still don't see why you can't synthesize the text a bit more, into a more compact and concise whole, but otherwise it looks much better. When will it be unblocked? —ArticXiongmao (talk) 23:08, April 18, 2015 (UTC)